DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**HagsPusia** · 05-09-2012, 08:00 PM

Only according to cultural marxist anthropologists who have a vested interest in denying the biological reality of race. There was a study done on medical students in some african country, whose name I don't remember, and they scored around the expected 80 point range. Why is that? They can't blame it on oppression or anything other factors. Chinese peasants still score around 100, despite having no education. So your argument doesn't seem to work.

As for arabs, they aren't really a race. Egyptians, syrians etc, are all arabised, not arabs as such. It wasn't the arabian tribemen from the arabian peninsula who made all the advancements; they themselves went back to their simple lives not long after the openings of the middle east. The islamic intellectual tradtion, specifically ashari theology, is essentially Persian, the whole line of philosophical argumentation that came via the mutazila into asharism came by the persian and christian converts to islam. Even in grammar, the one to formalise grammar, sibawayh, was not even an arab, he was persian.

t.'

See therein lies your problem. I could provide hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the last century firmly disproving any notion of inherent biological differences between races as related to intelligence. I really dont think you want to get into this, if we're taking a strictly scientific approach. Eugenics is hooey. Lets go back to phrenology if you're at it.

In regards to your second statement, it really don't matter if it was Persians. The point is, the European was a complete savage at one point, even though on the time scale, he had just as much opportunity to be as progressed as his Egyptian or Chinese counterpart by, say 1000 BC. Did the European all of a sudden evolve biologically? No - the European success can be explained by a multitude of factors, all of which are better guesses than some inherent idea of White intelligence. Lol at "cultural marxist anthropologists". Its simple science dude - grey matter, neurology, cellular structure. Do you also believe in the flat earth theory, because there are a few theories and some fringe scientists wrote some articles?

And the idea that the Nubian or Egyptian civilizations weren't "Black" in actuality is a common new myth perpetuated by many Neo-Nazi and White Power movements. Plenty of evidence suggests that both civilizations were ruled by the Negroid rather than Caucausoid peoples. Not all Black people need to look Gambian or Zimbabwean. Again, we're talking science here right? DNA and such?

05-09-2012, 08:00 PM	#39
HagsPusia Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 474 Senior Member	Only according to cultural marxist anthropologists who have a vested interest in denying the biological reality of race. There was a study done on medical students in some african country, whose name I don't remember, and they scored around the expected 80 point range. Why is that? They can't blame it on oppression or anything other factors. Chinese peasants still score around 100, despite having no education. So your argument doesn't seem to work. As for arabs, they aren't really a race. Egyptians, syrians etc, are all arabised, not arabs as such. It wasn't the arabian tribemen from the arabian peninsula who made all the advancements; they themselves went back to their simple lives not long after the openings of the middle east. The islamic intellectual tradtion, specifically ashari theology, is essentially Persian, the whole line of philosophical argumentation that came via the mutazila into asharism came by the persian and christian converts to islam. Even in grammar, the one to formalise grammar, sibawayh, was not even an arab, he was persian. t.' See therein lies your problem. I could provide hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the last century firmly disproving any notion of inherent biological differences between races as related to intelligence. I really dont think you want to get into this, if we're taking a strictly scientific approach. Eugenics is hooey. Lets go back to phrenology if you're at it. In regards to your second statement, it really don't matter if it was Persians. The point is, the European was a complete savage at one point, even though on the time scale, he had just as much opportunity to be as progressed as his Egyptian or Chinese counterpart by, say 1000 BC. Did the European all of a sudden evolve biologically? No - the European success can be explained by a multitude of factors, all of which are better guesses than some inherent idea of White intelligence. Lol at "cultural marxist anthropologists". Its simple science dude - grey matter, neurology, cellular structure. Do you also believe in the flat earth theory, because there are a few theories and some fringe scientists wrote some articles? And the idea that the Nubian or Egyptian civilizations weren't "Black" in actuality is a common new myth perpetuated by many Neo-Nazi and White Power movements. Plenty of evidence suggests that both civilizations were ruled by the Negroid rather than Caucausoid peoples. Not all Black people need to look Gambian or Zimbabwean. Again, we're talking science here right? DNA and such?
	Quote